1. But we just read a report that Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing and Arctic Sea Ice is at one of the highest levels in history for the quarter. There seems to be a problem getting FACTS from SCIENCE. That sounds like corruption and criminal activity.

  2. And yet there’s been no global warming for 16 (now 17) years. So whatever is happening is local. And sea ice melts from above AND BELOW. So maybe the problem (if such is a problem, melting sea ice doesn’t raise sea levels) is just shifting ocean currents bringing more warm tropical waters to the Arctic.

  3. I’m tired of reading crap from academics talking about satellite measurements and so on, obviously people aren’t satisfied regardless of what they turn up, or think they do.

    I want to hear about what’s relevant — people floating ships up there prospecting for oil & gas, or for a short-cut shipping route. That’s the real test. If you can’t get ships in or through, there’s too much ice. If you can, we’re making progress.

    As you might gather, I’m not only a skeptic, I also prefer a warmer world. Something like the Medieval Optimum sounds nice.

  4. Here’s the case AGAINST Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or CAGW.
    1) The only issue is CAGW — the prospect of a future climate disaster, which is typically characterized as a 3 degree C (up to 4.5 degree C, or more) increase in global temperature by 2100. Arguing about [A]GW is pointless, because: a) it’s historical; b) the historical temperature record is a mess; and c) it all depends on end points (e.g., since the Medieval Warm Period was arguably as hot or hotter than now, then it’s literally true there hasn’t been any GW in 1000 years). But all this is irrelevant because it’s past and so far the warming in the world (since 1850 or so) has been a tremendous boon to humanity both in terms of increased agricultural output and fewer deaths from coldness. The world is actually and literally greener thanks to CO2 from150 years ago.
    2) The science of CAGW (the 3+++ degree warming by 2100) is based on Stefan-Boltzmann black-body calculations that THEN must be tripled (!!!) to account for additional amplification due to [assumed] upper troposphere (UT) increased humidity resulting from said 1.2 degree warming. Specifically The SB formula is: F[orcing] = 5.35 x LN(final-CO2-concentration / starting-CO2-concentration). The LN is LN(560/280)= LN(2) for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm presumed before 1850 to 560 ppm estimated by 2100. This resolves to a 3.7 w/m2 IR repression or a 1.2 degree C increase in surface temperature. Tripling this for the assumed water vapor additional forcing and you get the disastrous 3-4.5 degree C GW event by century end).
    3) The 1.2 degree warming from SB becomes .315 degrees, thusly: a) we’re at 390 ppm now in 2012, 40% of the way to 560 from 280, so instead of the 1.2 degrees extra warming from SB FROM NOW, the new F = 5.35*LN(390/280)=1.77 W/M2, or .57 degrees C of CO2 related warming from 1850’s 280ppm to today’s 390 ppm. That means we’ve got .63 degrees more to go (1.2-.57=.63) by 2100 or whenever CO2 levels get to 560 ppm, Then, from Kevin Trenberth’s global energy budget (2008), 50% of solar radiation hitting the planet’s surface is taken up NOT AS HEAT, but as [cooling] EVAPORATION, so ..63 degrees becomes .315 degrees, QED [It matters not that the cooling of evaporation becomes warming at 10 km or so, when the water vapor precipitates, because we actually live on the surface and in any event the UT heating is easily radiated from 10 km up to outer space].
    4) Several studies have shown that warmer temperatures HAVE NOT led to higher UT humidity in the REAL WORLD. Specifically, Gray and Schwartz (2011) showed that from 1984-2004 when global temperatures increased by .4 degrees C, UT humidity actually decreased. So much for the 2X amplification from extra UT humidity – that’s extra on top of the 1.2 degrees. Warming is NOT associated with increase in UT humidity, so the ASSUMED positive feedback turns out to be either a null or an ACTUAL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
    I leave out the possible further mitigation of warming due to increased rainfall from warming, which in turn leads to a cooling impact from: a) higher rainfall efficiency; and/or b) more albedo due to more rainfall.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *